Surely you can see the flaw in your line of reasoning.
If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede.
A government derives it's right to rule by the people accepting this rule.
Obviously this is a really hard problem and it opens up the door for all kind of abuses, but ultimately democracy demands that. Democracy first needs a demos. A group of people who feel connected by whatever reason they like and agree to form a community. If the borders of the community are not drawn by the community itself, it's not democratic. Just look at all the wars being fought about borders which were drawn by colonial forces and didn't respect the locals.
In this I also see the power of parliament's and federal states - even if your vote don't win the election, you are still represented in parliament and you have the local gov. Without that, it would be hard to keep regions where a majority voted different than the whole nations majority.
Globalism, neo-liberalism, individualism - all that severely reduced the solidarity people have which each other. The internet then connected us with people that we share much more with than just area. All nations, democracy as a whole will have to face this tremendous challenge. And I have no idea how.
If you follow this principle to the extreme then laws become essentially voluntary, which contradicts the whole meaning of law.
I think democratic principles can never be applicable to decisions about the existence of the entity as a whole in the same way they apply to governing an existing entity.
Surely you can see the flaw in this new line of reasoning as well?
There is two simple truths. 1. If a group decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by a certain body, it's hard to legitimize the continuation of that rule. 2. If any group, especially very small ones can refuse the ruling body, all big groups will ultimately split down to individuals with no rules at all.
Democracy only works when balancing these truths. Trough opposition in parliament, minority rights, local and regional governments, regional independence and so on.
I.e. the whole situation in Catalan is blowing up because the reginal independence wasn't granted (or not enough in the opinion of the Catalans). Look at South-Tyrol in Italy for an example where things are working better. Even the American states are a good example - liberal, rich California wouldn't accept Republican rule without the independence the states have.
Surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?
It's weird that everyone wants a large monopoly not a lot of smaller competing governments.
I dont think a "town", regardless of their richness, would be able to handle that.
Now, I could see the eastern seabed, with the bounds of the Appalachian mountains as a "country". I could also see the northern and southern areas between the 2 mountain ranges being their own countries as well. But not a "town".
I'm trying to soften the blow, what do you think I should tell them?